Sh. BASHIR AHMAD vs D.IG. (POLICE) and another SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
The petitioner, a Sub-Inspector of Police, filed two petitions for leave to appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, challenging judgments of the Punjab Service Tribunal which upheld disciplinary actions against him. The first matter concerned a penalty of censure imposed for negligence in failing to report a traffic accident to superior officers, despite the petitioner's claim that a formal inquiry was required. The second matter involved the refusal to place the petitioner on probation, based on his service record containing multiple recent punishments. The Supreme Court addressed whether an elaborate formal inquiry is mandatory for minor penalties and whether the Service Tribunal can interfere with the competent authority's assessment of an officer's fitness for probation. The Court held that for minor penalties, providing the grounds and an opportunity to explain is sufficient to meet the standard of fairness, and an elaborate inquiry is not required. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the assessment of an officer's fitness for probation is within the discretion of the competent authority, and the Tribunal cannot interfere absent a legal ground.
- Is an elaborate formal inquiry mandatory before imposing a minor penalty on a civil servant?
- Does the Service Tribunal have the jurisdiction to interfere with the competent authority's decision regarding an officer's fitness for probation?
- What constitutes the required standard of fairness when imposing a minor penalty on a police officer?
- Article 212(3), Constitution of Pakistan 1973
' SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J--The Petitioner, a Sub-Inspector of Police, seeks by two separate petitions under Article 212(3) of the Constitution, leave to appeal against two separate judgments of the Punjab Service Tribunal, by which his appeals were dismissed.
2. In point of time the first is Civil Petition for leave to appeal No, 27 of 1986 in which he was called upon to show cause for failure to perform official duties in an appropriate manner in a traffic accident case involving the death of four and injuring three persons on 28-5-1982. The Superintendent of Police heard him in the Orderly room on 11-11-1982, considered his explanation and awarded him the penalty of Censure. His appeal to the D.I.G. Failed. The Service Tribunal also dismissed the appeal observing as hereunder:- "We have given our anxious thought to the arguments advanced by the parties and have examined Zimnis ourselves and find that the appellant took into hands the investigation of this case at 12 midnight on 29-5-1982 in the Mayo Hospital, Lahore. We do not find the presence of the D.S.P. Anywhere mentioned in the Ziminies although the presence of the MMP is mentioned, and duly recorded by the appellant in para-7 of this case diary. In these circumstances, we are fully convinced that the SDPO did receive any information either through Special messenger or through Telephone of the accident and thus the competent authority as well as appellate authority were fully justified to hold that the appellant has acted carelessly by not conveying the facts of this accident to the next higher authorities. We further find that copy of this Zimni of this accident was first received by the SDPO for Record on 21-9-1982 four months after these were written."
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it was a factual matter which should have been inquired into by an elaborate inquiry and the Petitioner should have been allowed to lead evidence. The plausibility and the correctness of his defence has not been looked into by any of the authorities.
4. The punishment awarded to the petitioner is a minor one and that could be imposed by providing him the grounds on which it was based and an opportunity of explaining the factors. The required standard of fairness was observed. He was not precluded from presenting any report or a copy of it made with regard to the failure of the wireless system or of the established machinery for communications of urgent messages between him and his superiors. In the absence of it, he cannot insist on an elaborate formal inquiry into such a charge.
5. In the second Petition (Civil Petition for leave to appeal No, 893 of 1986) he challenged not only the Censure earlier awarded to him but also an order dated 10-4-1985 not placing him on probation. That order is expressed to be as hereunder:- "Heard inspection. He has obtained 25 C.Cs as against four punishments consisting of a censure in 1982; Forfeiture of service in 1985, another forfeiture of service in 1985 and a censure in 1985. In view of these recent punishments, he is not considered fit for probation at this stage.
' Order announced.
' A copy of this order should be served on this Officer for his information."
6. The Service Tribunal while upholding the imposition of punishment of Censure, and on account of it, refused relief against this order, additionally on the ground that the appeal was time-barred.
7. The competent authority has examined the service record and considered him not fit enough to be placed on probation. Such a question was outside the purview of the Tribunal unless some legal ground was made out. None appears to exist in the case. The tribunal rightly, therefore, dismissed his service appeals.
8. Leave to appeal is refused in both the petitions.